I have always been a big believer in primes being the only way to go for my wildlife shooting. Couple of years ago I was using a 600 mm on my Panasonic GH5. My brother had the Sigma 150 to 600 contemporary. I had an adapter to fit it to my camera so borrowed his lens for part of that afternoon. At one moment my wife was standing on the outside of a fence and there were four horses standing on the other side of the fence. I was able to get a really nice close-up zoomed all the way into 600 mm of all5 heads, but then I remembered I could zoom out to 150 and did so. That’s when I was sold!...on these new super zoom, super telephoto lenses. I was able to get my wife and 4 horses fully in the frame by zooming out. It was a revelation moment for me and that amazing bargain of the lens, only $900. It has become my staple and I would not even imagine using a prime again unless I was working a specific project or it was supplied to me and it was the main lens needed for that particular project. Probably where a better-in-lower-light lens would be required.

Hey, I'm one of the guys that met you a St Vrain shooting Osprey. I wish I could afford a nice prime like that, but I think I prefer the zoom versatility IMHO.

Stunningly sharp and concise wildlife photos! The coyotes were magnificent! And thanks for being so informative about these lens. You help a lot of people with decisions and advice.

Excellent video, Brian! Beautiful and informative. Thank you.

Excellent review in mentioning the pros/cons of each. Thank you!

Very well said. It is my dream lens for my a1. Thank you for this informative video.

Incredible shots Brian! Getting back into photography and you're in my top follows.

I have both and you are spot on .

Lovely images and info. Thank you

Thanks for sharing, impressive lens.

Within the first 10 seconds I got a heaping eyefull to know exactly what the video is going to be about and it's going to rock! 👊😃👍

I absolutely love my Sony 600mm! I use it 98% of the time. Once you get used to how far away you must be from your subject, this lens is awesome! I ordered the new Sony 300mm as I photograph hummingbirds, and I find myself in closer range than 8 feet even with an extension tube. Birds in flight in closer range is difficult. But I love that lens. I bought the 200-600mm twice over time, thinking I should have a wider option. But the focus and hunting are greater than 600mm. The 600mm locks instantly.

Very well say Brian! I have both and I use the 600 F/4 95%. Love to see video 200-600 vs new 300 GM + 2x TC

Good stuff Brian

Thanks for the video, I have the 200-600 and pretty pleased with it, I'm considering the new 300/2.8 to use with 1.4 or 2 converter.

What program do you use to de-noise? Those results are insane!

Those shots with the prime are amazing. I would love to use one, but the reality of hauling a lens that big into the Amazon or across Africa, keeping it safe in transit, not getting into trouble at the airport (Ethiopia), and the cost makes it not possible for me. It's a tradeoff. But your image quality is superb, and love the images.

Interesting comparison. I myself use the sigma 150-600 and have managed to get beautiful images. Obviosly the extra 2 stops of light would be great to have, but considering I got if for about 1200$ and not 12K, I'd take the raised ISO :) especially with the new noise reduction tools that make previously unusable images perfectly ok.

I have both lenses and I hate the zoom for being front heavy.The 600 GM is a joy to use!

Hi brian... where in national park do you like to for route? Im in colorado and ive never experieneced this animals there

I have problems with the 200-600 mostly related to sharpness. Most of my photos require Topaz.

Yeah, but can you vlog on it!? Seriously, I'm so impressed by what you've been able to capture of late!! Also, from what I hear Topaz is worth every penny and not too labor intensive... It might be worth looking into it if you have footage that equals the photos you've taken.

Hey Brian I'm also in Colorado! and in truly wondering if it's worth to upgrade I have the 200-600 atm

Most of mine are at 100 yards or more and I just can't get closer. When the subject is closer I can pull out so much more detail. 2/6 and a 6000 I am on a budget so

I think for photography 600mm f4 is just the way to go. I'm 90% video guy, and videos are pretty flexible and I think the 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 is a better lens for video. I usually just keep it at 6.3. Also the other benefit in video is that you can crop if you have a larger sensor and still maintain pristine IQ in 4K video even if you push it all the way to an actual 1080p. Too dark? Go 24fps with 1/50s or even 1/40s if needed. I think the 600mm is brilliant and would love to have it, but I think 200-600mm would serve be good at the moment. But I would rather get the 400mm f2.8 for night wildlife filmmaking with the a7SIII.

Hi ,brian which would you recommend between 200-600 or 70-200 f.2.8 gm II with Sony a6700 maybe with a 2x teleconverter

Quick question, will that prime lease always blur out the background? I shoot surf videography and like to be able to show the waves in the background of my subject

Holy cow, the 600 photos are nuts! Seems to have a bit more contrast, and detail, than the 200-600.

I have just got the 600 F4 GM and am loving it. It is difficult in a KZfaq video to appreciate the differences it makes, but in actually editing the photos, enlarging to 100% it is quite obvious. Not that the 200-600 is bad, but the prime images just have an extra edge

I just loved you in AC/DC ha

As long as you have enough light for the 200-600mm, I can't really imagine a scenario that you'd need to dish out over $10k more for the 600 f4. If bokeh is an issue, just throw into Google photos and adjust background blur. voilà.

I compliment my 200-600 with my 600 f4 however the 200-600 should not be un-derated for its versatility

Nice Video! If excellently blurred Bokeh is your primary goal in your wildlife pictures, then you have made a good choice on the Sony 600mm prime. But please do not sell your 200-600mm lens short. The reeds in the picture of what looks like an immature White-Crowned Sparrow do a great job giving the picture a natural wild area context. To me, the sparrow looks "wilder" than a bird completely isolated by bokeh. Please do not get me wrong: when I pull off a good case of bokeh I celebrate! Why? Because for this M43 user full bokeh is very hard to pull off since distances between me, the subject, and the background are hard for me to control. Besides, most of my friends and clients are researchers of the natural world and they sure do like context in their pictures. In short, never get rid of your 200-600mm lens so you'll be able to fine tune your pictures for the specific needs of your clients. Cheers!

As much as I lust for a 600mm prime, every time I wondered about having a 600mm f4.0 replace my 200-600mm I forced myself to zoom-in to 600mm and forget about the zoom ring. Every single time I aborted that simulation after just a couple of waves (surf photographer) and resumed zooming out as the surfer approaches me, as often the most spectacular maneuvers are performed after the surfer picked up some energy/speed, getting much closer to me in the meanwhile.

Hi, sorry but I just love the way presenters say "I shot this with the Sony A1 and 600 F4 lens" where on earth do ordinary working class people/hobbyists nowadays afford £5,879.00 for a body and £11,999.00 for a lens near total £18,000 or approx $23000.

When I got my A7 m4, I also got the 200-600mm. I hated it. It was tack sharp at 600mm but only if your subject was 50 ft away. Which is pretty useless for small birds and especially warblers. I replaced it with the Sigma Sport 150-600mm which has proven great, since the minimum focus distance was so much better at 600mm. The Sony prime 600mm has a much better minimum focus distance of 15 ft. It weighs nearly 7lb which is a lot to sling around when you shoot hand-held. I think I'll pass. If I was a pro, I'd go for it.

Me watching this video, not owning the 200 - 600 yet, thinking, that's a lot of money already 😅

Of course 600/4. This is understood.

‏‪1:17‬‏

Shooting the stuff is such a female dog. Who wants to carry round all that heavyweight and then the hardness of tracking the bird with a prime and no ability to zoom compared to not being able to get a clear enough shot but saving money with a 200 and 600 good Lord. Photography is such a racket.

What a revelation..the 600 f4 is better than the 200 -600.. who would have known that..